« Gore says health care is a right | Home | Quote of the Day »
CR Composition Corner: I did it for the comments
By sage of monticello | October 16, 2007
While I think Morgan Wilkins is an OK gal and writes good stuff now and again, and while I think this article is good, the reason I post it is because of the feedback she received.
After reading the article, check out my top three responses that were posted on the facebook note of Morgan’s article and my responses to them. Some are better than others, but all should garner an inner chuckle at the expense of liberal who just don’t understand or refuaw to understand Republicans’ objections to the bill and how those objections comport with government’s proper role as articulated by the founders.
Bush’s Veto: A road block on the road to socialism
One mile on the road to socialism is the expansion of SCHIP.
In the past ten years SCHIP has gone from a program intended only to insure struggling families to a permanent middle class entitlement program. At this speed, ten more years of the program’s expansion would result in completely socialized medicine.
But isn’t that what the Democrats want? Bigger government? Complete control over the healthcare industry? Complete control over our personal healthcare decisions? Though they may not admit this in words, their actions betray their true intentions. The expansion of SCHIP would not only target poor and uninsured families, but would encourage families already receiving private health insurance to transfer over to state-sponsored healthcare.
The effect: a culture of dependency, a heavier burden on tax payers, and a large amount of power shifting from the free market to the hands of the government.
The bulk of funding for the SCHIP expansion is expected to come from an increased cigarette tax. Not only is this illogical because mostly low-income people smoke cigarettes, which will essentially result in the poor funding the healthcare of the middle class, but it is also a slippery slope.
What happens when the tobacco funding dries up? You can bet that the big-government politicians will come after all tax payers, which includes you, to fill the vacuum. The expansion’s supporters in Congress are fully aware of this but they are hoping that American’s lack of sympathy towards smokers will distract them from reality.
People need to stop listening to the demagoguery and look at the facts. The Democrats are attempting to spin the SCHIP debate into a battle between those-who-care-about-children versus those-who-don’t-care-about-children. These tactics are nothing new for the Left, who think they can advance their socialist agenda so long as it is in the name of the children.
Even big-government Bush understood this and took a stand. President Bush’s veto has put up a major road block on the path to socialism.
If the Democrats truly want to help modest-income families who are struggling to make ends meet, and not just put more power in the hands of the government, then they should consider a much more market friendly and choice friendly solution: tax credits.
(1) Sean Taylor of KY writes: Watch your back, patrician - the hammer and sickle are coming!
I can hardly stop laughing, but the thought that workers will at anytime in the near future rise up in revolution given the weakness of the unions is hard to imagine.
(2) Stephen T. Shepard writes: Ha! God forbid we tax for the benefit of America’s children………… I’m sure Jesus would agree.
Free will, Stephen. Jesus would agree if the rationale for governmental decisions was to expand or preserve freedom. At the heart of Christian philosophy is the concept of free will, which as I am sure a God-fearing liberal such as yourself knows. This concept seems to indicate a degree of freedom in choosing to follow the dictates of Christianity, such as service and assitance to the poor and needy. I am in no place to speak for Jesus, however I tremble at the notion that he would force morality upon us with no choice. That simply is not the message of the bible.
(3) Nonsense, the constitution requires the government to provide national defense AND general welfare.
Gross and wanton interpretation of “general welfare.” There is substantial evidence to indicate that “general welfare,” within the context of classical liberalism (the philosophical school of the founders, you know the people who wrote our constitution), was not intended to somehow justify and require financially focused social programs, such as TANF or Social Security. To the contrary “general welfare” most likely means the preservation of rights, liberties, and freedoms - not coerced wealth redistribution.
Topics: CR Composition Corner |
October 17th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
(2) Complete garbage, a recent study was released and determined that the privatized sector of health care was over 3 times as expensive as Gov’t provided. Believe it or not, private healthcare costs taxpayers more!
American’s aren’t free when they’re tied down to Social Darwinist policies of Laissez-faire markets either, a system in which corporations hold more power than any individual. We’re not free when private corporations are able to direct the nation’s domestic affairs and foreign policy.
I wonder if the SOM is implying that “freedom of purchase” is more important than “Free-speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble.” The citizen’s of Nazi-Germany had economic freedom but lacked the latter. I’ll take the rights specifically expressed in the bill of rights, thank you!
I would advise SOM to look into a time in our history known as the “Gilded Age” when corporations had almost complete power over the country. He obviously isn’t aware of it.
(3) Like it or not, even in free markets there is a need for gov’t to ensure each party plays by the rules; we need both responsible gov’t and responsible business to have a just, equitable and free society.
*Free markets are incredibly efficient, but brutal.
*Complete gov’t control is equitable but brutal.
Both complete gov’t control or complete free markets stand in the face of human progress, so we must be sensible Americans and compromise to do what is right for the country!
I’ll leave you with a quote from one of my favorite Presidents:
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952
October 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I am only going to say that you were very, very dishonest as far as my comments go. There were probably 20 comments I left on that page which were highly relevant to the subject matter at hand, from the constitutionality of social programs to conservative judicial activism; and you posted only the first one, which was clearly a joke?
I might have been upset at such a manifestation of utter ethical depravity in journalistic practice, save for the fact that - be still my bleeding heart - I would feel guilty for mocking a group which seems to have the combined IQ of a raisin. Can’t quite expect coherent debate out of the ignorant, now can we?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“…very, very dishonest…”
Ouch. Do you wanna hug Sean…
Did I mis-quote?, or do you just feel stupid for making a stupid comment. This is politics, and what you say will be used…
Don’t be such a whimp about it. Remember to be a real communist you have to be tough, tough enough to force your worldview and conception of “freedom” on everyone.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Ha, I like how I didn’t get any response! Sean your so lucky…… but I guess SOM can’t argue with a well thought out ideology that’s proved to work instead of an ideology based on illogical passion and all of the terrible traits that reside within human nature, those that Christ clearly speaks against.
History lies behind our sails Sean, onward toward progress!
October 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
History lies on your side. Wonderous how well the U.S.S.R. worked out. Communism failed, and if tried again, will fail again.
Well thought out ideology. I will admit the arguement postulated by Marx is logical. However this is not the end of the inquiry. Where Marx fails is in the cogency of his argument, the truthfulness of his premises.
Where the classical liberals succeed is with the cogency of their premises. Their premises accurately reflect the deficiencies of human nature and seek to manipulate them for social good.
Where Marx would wish away human inadequancies, classical liberals realistically acknowledge their existence and seek practicual ways to mitigate their effects through the use of freedom, liberty, equality, and justice.
You can’t force people to be decent, you have to make it in their best interest.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Hmmm, really funny SOM, I wasn’t talking about the USSR, I was referring to the United States under the new deal and under Keynesian Economics. The one that gave us the most powerful economy and military in world history.
I like how SOM uses a stage name instead of his real name. I also like how he didn’t argue any of these points under Morgan’s post but came here to do it.
Thanks for linking to me Morgan! The truth shall be heard!
October 18th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Thanks Mr. Shepard, I appreciate you narrowing the topic for me. Without your narrowing effect, I would have to resort to broad attacks on the philosophical deficiencies and inefficiencies of socialism/communism/populism. Since you touch only the utility of socialism I will not make an philosophical arguments.
It is interesting you consider that the new deal and deficit spending is the source of the strength of the U.S. economy. I wonder if you took away the premises of your argument from a economist. I would bet most likely not. Since it is a widely help doctrine among economists that the source of economic strength is less and not more government taxation and regulation.
It is a widely held myth that deficit spending, and more specifically military spending, was the reason we exited the Great Depression. The substantial factor for the dissipation of the Great Depression was the gradual reduction of massive governmental regulation of the economy that began with the Hoover administration and worsened with the New Deal. There is substantial empirical data that supports this.
I understand the elementary liberal argument that the Great Depression happened (variable A), followed by the New Deal (variable B), and then followed by the dissipation of the Great Depression (variable C)
A happens — then B happens —- and then A goes away (C)
This is about as simple an economic analysis can get. Not to mention the most pathetic.
At most you might have a rough correlation, but in no way does such an argument suggest the strong casual relationship you suggest.
Bottom line, Stephen, is that less is more when it comes to government spending and regulation.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:53 am
SOM (I’ll call you Charlie from now on since you don’t present your real name and I find sage of monticello corny)
So anyhow Charles, look up Keynesian Economics before this discussion becomes anymore elementary, I feel as if I’m teaching a 100 level political economy course because it’s evident from your post your unfamiliar with the economic policy and the fact that it lasted all the way up until ‘81, way past ‘45.
You can stick to your partisan economic theorists, I’ll go with what history teaches us (a subject more American’s need to look into)
Yes! We agree deficit spending is bad! That’s why the term “tax and spend Democrat” has a positive connotation now days, not a bad one. Ever since Ronnie (with the exception of Clinton or course) we’ve led an incredible unbalanced, undisciplined and irresponsible national budget, we should pay as we go as well as cut taxes where they’re needed (the middle class) the economy always runs much better when the middle class gets tax cuts.
I find it highly ironic the two major stock market crashes were both under Republican presidents by the way: ‘29 and ‘87.
Oh and by the way the post-war boom was administered under Truman with the New Deal policies fully in place, you might want to read up on that.
P.S. Did you like my Eisenhower quote?
April 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
i am gonna show this to my friend, brother
July 8th, 2008 at 12:16 am
nice day,